What do you expect from a DI? 
2 Likes
And no one has mentioned star trek yet 
Amen should be replaced by Live long and prosper
1 Like
Back to the secular subject - Archbishop Welby is due to leave his post after Christmas following yet another child abuse scandal within the church. Why have these organisations felt it to be appropriate to try and protect the reputation of the organisation above the welfare of the vulnerable.
Does this not bring the whole concept of religion into question?
Are the Catholic Church just as hypocritical?
Is it time now to separate state and church totally, remove all religious involvement in parliament especially in the House of Lords and deny these groups the influence they have?
Should education exclude any religious ceremony but still focus on knowledge of faith and beliefs as well as remove funding from all religious based schools? (If parents want a religious education for their children, let them fund it privately and pay VAT)
I’m not just talking about Christian religions but all of them. They seem to have been, and continue to be, a major catalyst in conflict across the world.
Each to their own but if I want to join the local golf club I pay for the privilege from my own pocket. Why is it not the same for all the god(s) clubs?
Finally, I liked Voyager best. I need a hologram in my life.
1 Like
I’ll state clearly that I’m not including child sex abuses in my thinking here (though @XRSO raises a very valid point above).
I originally wanted to create a cross-belief welfare cohort of support staff on my unit, but now I don’t want any of that and I have a very clear and defensible justification.
What I have seen through years of engagement, and over the last year regarding promoting the interests of all my cadets equally re Remembrance, is that representatives of the church (at least) are incapable of putting the beliefs of others ahead of their own when the chips are down.
I acknowledge that I’m making a sweeping statement, but it is at least true in all my dealings where I’ve asked that Christian belief take a step back to make equitable space for others (including non-religious world views).
I therefore have no intention of trying to fill my padre slot from the local community because they’ve collectively demonstrated (in emails that were shared accidentally with a colleague) that they’d rather plot to have me thrown out of my volunteer role for holding different beliefs than to support inclusion and the interests of all my young adults equally.
And they did file at least one malicious report.
When the chips are down, I’ve not yet met a religious leader who would take a hit to their own interests in favour of giving everyone else a leg-up.
And I think that really matters when we appoint religious leaders “for the welfare benefit of all cadets and staff”.
Do you really think the 26 bishops are the biggest problem with the House of Lords? We need to stop with all the unambitious reforms (replacing hereditary peers with appointees only makes things worse) and either abolish the House of Lords or replace it with an English parliament.
The churches built many of those schools and ran them when there was no other way of getting a ‘free’ education. Many parents attend church purely to get their kids into religious schools, because they’re better. Those parents can’t afford public school fees: even without the class warrior addition of VAT.
Religious schools are selective, and so it’s no surprise those that attend may get better results if their parents are already willing to attend a church regularly just to secure a place.
They may have built many schools in the past, but let’s not pretend it’s all about educating the masses. Proselytisation is a strong motivator and we still have compulsory worship in schools as default…
No I don’t but as this thread is about being secular and sci-fi I tired to keep on topic.
2 Likes
Very loosely 
This introduces a very serious point, which is a tangent and separate to other things I’ve been talking about.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting all religious leaders are child abusers, just for the avoidance of doubt. However…
When Christian churches have repeatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of reporting something as serious as child abuse at the very highest levels and actively cover it up, I find appointing religious leaders from those same organisations and thus signalling approval impossible to justify at an organisational level.
Appointing religious leaders from these churches to posts of privileged access within our own youth organisation precisely because they are a religious leader, (vetted by other religious leaders) sends a message that we are aligned in our values, which I would suggest isn’t a given considering the institutional child abuse and cover ups that are documented as recently as the last decade.
Lesser transgressions would see businesses and charitable organisations clearly and actively distancing themselves from an organisation and its representatives.
To @XRSO’s point on the Catholic Church, yes. I remember an awkward moment on the Australian Question Time where Cardinal Pell was laughed at for talking about a time when they were “preparing young boys”. Safe to say that didn’t age well…
1 Like
We need to very careful with this line of thought as it equally applies to the cadet forces who have had similar happen & done the same thing.
We had a whole BBC panorama episode about abuse in the military cadet forces & due to having military lawyers & government funds to draw on most of the shade was able to be thrown onto the MSSC.
Scouts have has a similar situation & the police are going through the mill of it as well.
If you don’t approve of how a particular church has dealt with matters & want them excluded on grounds of safeguarding then you need to also apply that to others included the air training corps.
Thank fully we are a lot better since expanding the safeguarding team & removing volunteers from the reporting chain but the fact remains that there are still nastys out there under the radar which we need to be vigilant on.
I believe the main reason for Welby resigning is that before he was archbishop, it was made aware of the awful allegations but didn’t take any action as he was under the impression that it had already been reported to police so didn’t do anything.
I think the old saying is “ take the beam out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of someone else”
1 Like
I’m certainly not against appointing people as general volunteers just because they’re religious leaders.
Just like any other adult volunteer, everyone brings different skillsets to their voluntary work and our organisation is strengthened by that diversity of experience.
But appointing religious leaders because they’re religious leaders doesn’t feel suitable for a modern organisation with secular goals.
I certainly accept your caution regarding my above post. It’s important to separate the individual from the organisation.
But no one else appoints people from the police, Scouts, or ATC simply because they’re a part of those organisations, which means it’s much easier to separate the two.
We appoint people to our organisation in their religious capacity because they hold that status in another organisation, and so institutionalised cover-ups of child abuse become directly relevant to us as a youth organisation if the message we then send is “religious leaders from X,Y, & Z institutions are suitable to engage with your children because they’re religious leaders from those aforementioned institutions”.
No one can be an ATC chaplain without first being a registered individual with those select organisations, therefore we have created a link for which we are responsible.
1 Like
Don’t chaplains have to apply for DBS, like everyone else? If so, then we don’t just assume they’re suitable because they’re ordained.
Yes & their appointment has to go through the wing chaplain so the background suitability enquiries can be made as part of a vetting process.
1 Like
Police cadets did - which is why they ended up in a big mess regarding DBSs & safeguarding mess as the assumed it was okay to appoint police officers as cadet leaders without any additional checks or training.
But the point here is:
-
If nothing was reported, there’s nothing to find and;
-
The religious leader’s organisation (which may not have dealt with something they should have) is then involved in supporting an application. That application is then reviewed by a religious leader who has already started volunteering with us after having gone through that same process.
Again, important to highlight that we’re not saying everyone is a problem here just because they’re a religious leader, but even the appointment process hangs on the involvement of people representing organisations with a track record of covering up child abuses.
Therefore if the whole point is safety checks, the process doesn’t have as many unique and independent safeguards as we may first think.
Again: tangent alert.
Well the air cadets kinda have to be involved despite their history as it is their organisation.
1 Like
So bringing the tangent back,
There is a likewise an assumption that in lieu of the RBL that the cadet forces lead on the remembrance parade organisation as part of the council.
This means that the remembrance service is dictated by the whims of individuals rather than what is generally wanted or needed & can make it.
It also means that any faults or any necessary changes (e.g. updating to make more inclusive & account for the change in community) are unfairly aimed at the cadet forces organising rather than the people responsible namely the council.
1 Like
We’re responsible and able to keep our own house in order though.
We’re not in that position regarding other organisations.
Well it’s not all on me. This is a discussion that has been permitted to ebb and flow loosely around secularisation in addition to my original post on inclusive remembrance.
I’m just engaging with a point @XRSO raised.
1 Like
Apologies I appreciate I was added to the tangent so was typing a quick holding post to bring it back!
Hectic morning at work ! 
Apologies. Too quick off the mark 
1 Like